Liberals need to stop sneering at people

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Hence the use of terms like, "tend." Obviously it's not true in every case, but the gender gap and the reason for its existence have been well known for decades.

Sure there is a gender gap... males and females are different... but your generalization wasn't even close to being true...

[JohnT]

Here's the optimist/pessimist thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=107708

[Agathon]

nd to imply that being conservative is subnormal is an even worse generalization. It shows a total lack of knowledge and is just a knee jerk reaction to people who have different opinions than you

I have science on my side.

[JohnT]

Oops... looks like it got deleted. My apologies.

According to the thread, the boards pessimists are:

UberKrux
civman2000
Tripledoc
Osweld
Oncle Boris
Odin
Monkspider
Spiffor
Dissident
Shi (not a Lefty, but then, very few things are 100%).
Verres
Sava

Optimists:
Urban Ranger (not a Righty, but then, very few things are 100%).
Ogie Oglethorpe
JohnT
Drogue
Boshko

Again, we didn't vote in droves... probably that "we've got better things to do" thing again.

However, the trend is unmistakable. Lefties tend to be pessimistic, Righties tend to be optimistic. The question now is, which came first: the attitude or the ideology? My guess would be the attitude.

[Agathon]

The problem with conservatism is that it isn't even a coherent ideology. Say what you want about the Liberals, but at least they have some justification for their fundamental principles of justice.

I've never seen a justification of conservatism that didn't explicitly or implicitly appeal to religious belief.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
The problem with conservatism is that it isn't even a coherent ideology.

Just more of the since you don't agree with me you can't be right stuff

Say what you want about the Liberals, but at least they have some justification for their fundamental principles of justice.

So... all liberals believe in justice, and all conservatives don't... is that really what you are saying...

[Agathon]

Just more of the since you don't agree with me you can't be right stuff

That's not what it says.

So... all liberals believe in justice, and all conservatives don't... is that really what you are saying...

No. Please read more carefully.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Zkribbler, that is not what Agathon said. He said "equality" in the sense that socialism defines equality: economic equality.

No, what he said was:

Originally posted by Agathon
In other news Saskatchewan has just legalized gay marriage.

It's sort of funny that Liberals are being accused of looking down on people, since that is merely a contingent feature of Liberalism. Liberalism is founded upon equality and holds in low regard (i.e. treats as unequal) views that promote inequality. This is a contingent matter, if there was nobody holding such views, the attitude would vanish.

On the other hand, inequality is essential to conservatism. Conservatives, whether they like to admit it or not, always have to have some group to hold in contempt due to their love of status hierarchies. It really doesn't matter who they are, yesterday it was blacks, now it's gays, tomorrow who knows?

He's talking about socal equality. There ain't a dollar sign in that statement anywhere. And, he's talking about liberalism, not socialism.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT

However, the trend is unmistakable. Lefties tend to be pessimistic, Righties tend to be optimistic. The question now is, which came first: the attitude or the ideology? My guess would be the attitude.

Rightists and their idealist utopian fantasies.

[Agathon]

I think I'll start a new thread to see if any of Poly's conservatives can come up with a coherent conservative principle of justice.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
He's talking about socal equality. There ain't a dollar sign in that statement anywhere. And, he's talking about liberalism, not socialism.

Zkribbler, social equality in its ultimate form is economic equalitiy. Social equality is the bedrock concept of socialism, not of liberalism.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
However, the trend is unmistakable. Lefties tend to be pessimistic, Righties tend to be optimistic. The question now is, which came first: the attitude or the ideology? My guess would be the attitude.

To be honest, I think you are correct. Righties are far more optimistic about the future, despite having a pessimistic view of human nature, whereas lefties are the opposite. I think it's cuz righties don't care about anyone else so the don't look at what's going on in the world, whereas lefties care about others and are horrified by what you righties are doing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Add me to the list of conservative optimists.

[Sava]

Originally posted by JohnT
Oops... looks like it got deleted. My apologies.

According to the thread, the boards pessimists are:

UberKrux
civman2000
Tripledoc
Osweld
Oncle Boris
Odin
Monkspider
Spiffor
Dissident
Shi (not a Lefty, but then, very few things are 100%).
Verres
Sava

Optimists:
Urban Ranger (not a Righty, but then, very few things are 100%).
Ogie Oglethorpe
JohnT
Drogue
Boshko

Again, we didn't vote in droves... probably that "we've got better things to do" thing again.

However, the trend is unmistakable. Lefties tend to be pessimistic, Righties tend to be optimistic. The question now is, which came first: the attitude or the ideology? My guess would be the attitude.

wow, what a scientific study you did there!

[Bosh]

You mean like this one AH? Amusing as all hell, but not terribly effective rhetoric:

by Janet Sullivan

By the time I had gone to bed, the chorus of pundits had fixed on a single tune, as they always do, and remarkably quickly, too. (Do they watch one another's feeds in the green room?) They had dusted off the old theme that the Democrats need to "reach out" more to the "heartland." Reach out? How, exactly? Forget that these folks blindly ignored all objective reality -- and their own best economic and national-security interests -- and voted for Bush. Look what they did at the Senate level. In Kentucky, they refused to use even basic sanity as a litmus test, and reelected a guy with apparent late-stage dementia; in Oklahoma, they tapped a fellow who wants to execute doctors who perform abortions, who was sued for sterilizing a woman against her will, who pled guilty to Medicaid fraud, and who largely opposes federal subsidies, even for his own state; in Louisiana, they embraced a man who has made back-door deals with David Duke and who was revealed to have had a long-running affair with a prostitute; in South Carolina, they went with a guy who thinks all gay teachers should be fired; and in Alaska, they reelected a woman who was appointed by her father to the job after a spectacularly undistinguished career as an obscure state senator. And compared with the rest of the GOP Class of '04, she's the freaking prom queen. These are the stellar elected officials that the "heartland" has foisted on the rest of us.

"Reach out" to these voters? Yeah. Then boil your hand till it's sterilized.